Are we too quick to assume that the most recent evidence is inevitably the strongest? discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.

The tendency to accept the most recent evidence as the strongest arises from our innate desire for progress and the assumption that newer information inherently surpasses its predecessors in accuracy, relevance, and reliability. Discussing if we can be too quick to assume the most recent information is automatically the strongest can help us shed light on how to approach the most recent evidence. ‘Too quick’ signifies the tendency to hastily prioritize the newest evidence without giving due diligence to its reliability, depth, or compatibility with existing knowledge structures. ‘Strongest’ denotes the perceived potency of evidence in shaping conclusions, emphasizing its credibility, relevance, and persuasive impact. In this essay, I will be using the natural sciences and the human sciences to compare how different types of evidence have different implications on how we accept new evidence. The scientific method in the natural sciences and the application of new methods and technology in human sciences are reasons why we aren’t ‘too quick’ to assume. However, confirmation bias and assumptions based on previous research in the natural sciences and the generalisation of human behaviour in the human sciences are reasons why we can be ‘too quick’.

 

The production of knowledge in the natural sciences is heavily regulated, this can be attributed to the type of evidence used in science which is characterised by their replicability and consistency. Scientific findings are based on a body of evidence that has been reviewed by experts in the field. Every claim that has been made and new evidence will have to undergo the process of scrutiny and they will always do it from a perspective of distrust. For example, in evolutionary biology, scientists presented evidence challenging traditional evolutionary theories, citing phenomena such as organisms altering their environments and the inheritance of chemical modifications to DNA across generations. In the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) proposed by eight scientists in 2014, they observed high mutation rates in genes which raised concerns about the traditional understanding of natural selection. While the modern synthesis suggested that even common mutations would be sifted by natural selection, the observed genetic changes seemed to be occurring independently of any selective pressure. (“Do We Need a New Theory of Evolution?”). However, when they presented their new findings, the response from other scientists was not immediate acceptance, they faced backlash in the conference ‘New Trends in Evolution’ because it didn’t fit the existing framework and weren’t based on previous understandings. The scientific community, in such instances, operates from a standpoint of distrust, not as a negative bias, but as a necessary mechanism to ensure the reliability of conclusions. The reluctance to immediately accept new evidence showcases the rigorous examination process undertaken by scientists. The evidence and conclusions underwent rigorous examination and review to ensure that conclusions are reliable. This approach reflects their commitment to maintaining the integrity and reliability of scientific knowledge through validation and peer review before embracing paradigm-shifting modifications to established theories. Therefore, in the natural sciences, the recency of the data does not necessarily make it the ‘strongest’, but their adherence to the ‘jury of geeks’ and scientific principles.

 

Sometimes, the combination of pre-existing evidence and a sense of duty or ethical responsibility can lead to the assumption that the most recent evidence is the strongest. Thalidomide, a drug from the late 1950s and early 1960s was widely prescribed to pregnant women to alleviate morning sickness (Kim). Thalidomide was introduced during a time when there was a growing demand for medications to alleviate pregnancy-related symptoms. Before it was released to the public, it underwent clinical trials, but the sample size and duration of these trials were insufficient to identify rare or long-term adverse effects. Furthermore, the focus of these trials was on the drug's sedative properties rather than its effects on pregnancy (Zhou). The sedative effects of Thalidomide were well-known, and it was believed to be safe for addressing insomnia and anxiety. It had been used in Europe without major reported issues, so they considered it safe for pregnant women (Zhou). The existing evidence on the drug's sedative properties contributed to the limited testing and the positive test results confirm that it could be a valuable solution for pregnancy symptoms. However, the drug led to severe birth defects, particularly limb deformities in infants born to mothers who took it during pregnancy. The urgency to provide relief for pregnancy-related symptoms, combined with the belief in the drug's safety based on existing evidence contributed to its ‘quick’ acceptance. This unforeseen outcome highlighted the inherent risk of assuming the safety of a drug based on existing evidence and when the urgency to address a medical need takes precedence. In this context, the assumption that the drug was safe based on existing evidence proved to be too quick, resulting in significant and irreversible harm.

 

The type of evidence we deal with in human sciences is often subjective and interpretive as they are aspects of human behaviour, thoughts, and experiences, where interpretations and context play a significant role. Furthermore, social phenomena and human behaviour are complex, making them challenging to control and replicate. The example in behavioural economics of nudging involves using subtle interventions to influence individuals' decision-making and behaviour. These interventions may range from altering the way choices are presented to individuals to incorporating social norms or default options. The effectiveness of nudges can be context-dependent, and what works in one scenario may not necessarily translate to another. In Philadelphia, the governor decided to put a tax on sugary drinks in hopes of decreasing the consumption of sugary drinks (Mikkelsen). However, this led to an increase in alcohol consumption instead and a loss in tax revenue. The reason the governor in Philadelphia implemented it was due to the success of the soda tax in Mexico. Findings from Mexico showed a decline in the consumption of sugary drinks, suggesting that the increased cost nudged consumers toward making healthier beverage choices (Sifferlin). This example emphasizes the importance of resisting the temptation to generalize findings from one study to all situations. Behavioural interventions and nudges are inherently context-dependent, and their effectiveness can vary widely. The nuances of human behaviour, different contexts, and the unpredictability of outcomes underscore the need to be cautious before assuming the most recent findings in the human sciences are the strongest ones. Just because a recent nudge or behavioural intervention proves effective in a specific study or context does not automatically mean it will universally apply to all situations.

 

However, sometimes with reliability and justification in the human sciences, we can jump into the assumption that the new evidence is the strongest. In law, the assumption that the most recent evidence is the strongest is often justified. The adjudication of the law is in itself subjective, we have no choice but to assume that the latest evidence is the most qualified and should therefore be accepted without prejudice even though it contradicts the previous evidence because you are trying to reach a just conclusion. DNA evidence has contributed significantly to the legal system due to their ability to exclude individuals from a crime scene and identify people who were there at that time. Countless cases have been reexamined and convictions overturned based on DNA evidence that was not available at the time of trial. In 1985, Bloodsworth was convicted of the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl in Maryland and sentenced to death. However, in 1992, DNA testing was conducted on evidence from the crime scene, and the results excluded Bloodsworth as the perpetrator (Kirk Bloodsworth). In cases like these, there are certain circumstances when new technology allows us to assume that the most recent evidence is the strongest without being ‘too quick’. In law, if the most recent evidence that comes up contradicts the previous evidence, it has the potential to reshape the understanding of a case. Courts typically consider the most recent evidence as the strongest because it may be a product of advancements in technology or investigative techniques. In cases where there is a conflict between the most recent evidence and earlier evidence, legal proceedings often prioritize the most recent information. This is guided by the understanding that the legal system's primary goal is to uncover the truth and deliver a just outcome. However, it's important to note that the strength of evidence is still subject to judicial scrutiny, and the court must assess the credibility, reliability, and relevance of the new evidence before determining its impact on the case.

 

Whether our tendency to assume the most recent evidence is the strongest one largely depends on the nature of evidence and the nature of AOK the evidence falls within. In the natural sciences, we can be too quick because ‘stronger’ evidence often requires more time for thorough research, experimentation, and validation. Quick acceptance of the most recent evidence may bypass the essential steps needed to produce reliable conclusions. The reliability of evidence in the natural sciences heavily depends on the scientific method, replicability, and the jury of geeks, so without it, flaws and biases in data will appear. In the human sciences, it can’t be replicated due to the uniqueness of human behaviour, therefore, the most recent evidence may not be the strongest in different societies. However, for law in the human sciences, the most recent evidence will have the most impact on the case due to advancements in technology, witnesses, or investigative methods. Hence, the nature of evidence and the specificities of each field underscores the importance of a context-aware approach to evaluating the strength and reliability of evidence.

“Do We Need a New Theory of Evolution?” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 28 June 2022, www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution. Accessed 24 Feb. 2024.

 

Kim, James H, and Anthony R Scialli. “Thalidomide: the tragedy of birth defects and the effective treatment of disease.” Toxicological Sciences: an official journal of the Society of Toxicology vol. 122,1 (2011): 1-6. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfr088. Accessed 29 Jan. 2024.

 

“Kirk Bloodsworth.” Innocence Project, 18 May 2023, innocenceproject.org/cases/kirk-bloodsworth/. Accessed 29 Jan. 2024.

 

Mikkelsen, Bent E., et al. "Does Visibility Matter? – A Simple Nudge Reduces the Purchase of Sugar Sweetened Beverages in Canteen Drink Coolers." Food Quality and Preference, vol. 92, 2021, p. 104190, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104190. Accessed 27 Feb. 2024.

 

Sifferlin, Alexandra. “Mexico’s Sugary Drink Tax Is Working, Study Suggests.” Time, 2016, time.com/4168356/mexico-sugar-drink-soda-tax/. Accessed 29 Jan. 2024.

 

Zhou, Shuang et al. “Thalidomide-a notorious sedative to a wonder anticancer drug.” Current medicinal chemistry vol. 20,33 (2013): 4102-8. doi:10.2174/09298673113209990198. Accessed 29 Jan. 2024.